Date of Award

1-2008

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Doctor of Nursing (ND)

Schools and Centres

Nursing and Midwifery

First Supervisor

Professor Selma Alliex

Second Supervisor

Professor Phillip Della

Abstract

Major failures in patient safety often lead to high profile inquiries set up to establish the facts, and to identify areas of improvement to prevent further failures. In order to learn from inquiries, we need to be able to identify if, and how, the inquiry process influences improvements. Using a case study strategy, this research study examined the perceptions of external stakeholders in regards to the impact or influence of the Douglas Inquiry on KEMH’s clinical governance systems. The research focused on two areas that were highlighted in the final Inquiry report as requiring reform. These systems deal with the clinical credentialing and performance review and the involvement of consumers in care. Several sources of data collection were employed. Firstly, document and archive analysis identified the procedures and processes employed by the Inquiry, and the changes that had occurred at the hospital. Secondly, semi-structured interviews ascertained participants’ perceptions of changes in clinical governance systems at KEMH post Inquiry, and the influence of the Inquiry on the changes that have taken place. The document and archives were analysed using an analytic approach described by Neuendorf (2002). The Miles and Huberman (1994) framework was used for the analysis of the interviews. The findings were then compared and with the literature. The study conclusions identified critical factors within the Inquiry process, which influenced improvement in the clinical governance systems examined. These factors were the Terms of Reference (TOR) and the investigative and inquisitorial processes employed by the Inquiry. Absence of one of these critical factors resulted in the Inquiry reinforcing existing barriers and thus, in those areas there was no change. Lewin’s (1951) model of change specifically informed the analytic process, with the outcome resulting in the development of a conceptual model of organisational clinical governance change.

Appendix 1.pdf (295 kB)
Appendix 1.pdf

Appendix 2.pdf (62 kB)
Appendix 2.pdf

Appendix 3.pdf (22 kB)
Appendix 3.pdf

Appendix 4.pdf (43 kB)
Appendix 4.pdf

Appendix 5.pdf (67 kB)
Appendix 5.pdf

Appendix 6.pdf (289 kB)
Appendix 6.pdf

Appendix 7.pdf (109 kB)
Appendix 7.pdf

Appendix 8.pdf (62 kB)
Appendix 8.pdf

Appendix 9.pdf (89 kB)
Appendix 9.pdf

Appendix 10.pdf (40 kB)
Appendix 10.pdf

Appendix 11.pdf (49 kB)
Appendix 11.pdf

Appendix 12.pdf (127 kB)
Appendix 12.pdf

Appendix 13.pdf (141 kB)
Appendix 13.pdf

Appendix 14.pdf (83 kB)
Appendix 14.pdf

Appendix 15.pdf (164 kB)
Appendix 15.pdf

Appendix 16.pdf (90 kB)
Appendix 16.pdf

Appendix 17.pdf (120 kB)
Appendix 17.pdf

Appendix 18.pdf (209 kB)
Appendix 18.pdf

Appendix 19.pdf (78 kB)
Appendix 19.pdf

Appendix 20.pdf (362 kB)
Appendix 20.pdf